The Golden Compass Controversy

Should this film be boycotted?

A new 180 million dollar movie based on the first book of Philip Pullman’s best selling trilogy, His Dark Materials, has sparked furious controversy in the Christian world. The fantasy adventure film, The Golden Compass, elicited indignant protest and calls for a world-wide boycott from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

What’s all the fuss about? Should Rabbis and Jewish leaders follow the lead of the Catholic League?

Undeniably, Pullman is an atheist who takes strong issue with any form of organized religion. "When you look at organized religion of whatever sort -- whether it's Christianity in all its variants, or whether it's Islam or some forms of extreme Hinduism -- wherever you see organized religion and priesthoods and power, you see cruelty and tyranny and repression," Pullman said in a 2002 British interview. So his books vilify those who obviously represent the Church and its teachings, rail at authoritarian figures who deny the right to question, and glorify independent thinking and refusal to be intimidated by irrational power.

Throughout the books, which are more popular in Britain than J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels, Pullman refers to the evil Magisterium, the cabal that seeks to control the world for its own nefarious purposes -- a term real-world Catholics use for the teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops of the Church.

New Line Cinema has worked hard to minimize the connection between its villains and Christian counterparts. Any references to the Church have been eliminated. But the idea of unquestioning faith is seriously slandered. What we need to consider seriously, though, is whether the best approach to attacks on faith is the simplistic response that we will deny you the right to be heard.

The power of true faith comes not from avoiding challenges but on confronting doubt and overcoming it.

It wasn’t too long ago that we Jews felt ourselves singled out for negative spotlight by Mel Gibson’s controversial -- and indeed inflammatory -- “The Passion.” Some felt that boycotting the movie to great fanfare would hurt its potential for stirring up anti-Semitism. What we saw instead was a truth Professor Gregory Black has now powerfully documented: “Boycotts generally have driven more people to the box office.”

But it isn’t simply the fact that boycotts are invariably counterproductive that makes this approach so unsound as best defense for attacks against faith. In a world of open ideas, close mindedness cannot survive. True faith, as Maimonides and so many of our greatest thinkers often taught, thrives on questioning; its power comes not from avoiding challenges but on confronting doubt and overcoming it.

When Nobel Prize winner Isaac Rabi was asked to what he attributed his success, he said he always remembered that every day when he came home from school his mother would ask him, “Did you ask any good questions today?” What he imbibed was that we ultimately gain more from questions than answers. Answers bring a subject to a close; questions open us up to ever more profound and deeper understanding. That perhaps more than anything else may explain Jewish genius. From youth we explore the Torah, Talmud and commentaries with inquisitive minds encouraged to ask even when no clear response is in sight. To do otherwise would be to imply that our faith cannot withstand scrutiny, that our commitment to God is so tenuous that it is afraid of critical analysis.

The response to The Golden Compass is a microcosm of a far larger issue that has profound implications for the Jewish world as well. Catholic leaders who make the case for banning the film believe its message is dangerous and therefore must be silenced. But another approach has surfaced in the midst of this brouhaha. The Church of Scotland’s Mission & Discipleship Council declared that the film “provides a golden opportunity to stimulate discussion on a wide range of moral and spiritual issues.” Several prominent Catholics have gone on record as urging believers to see the film so that it serve as spring board for the kind of debate that might bring greater clarity to people’s religious views. Perhaps, some suggest, criticism need not be silenced; far better if it is heard and refuted.

We live in a secular age. Atheists write books trashing religion that have become best sellers. Our culture heaps praises on those who mock spiritual values. Should our response be no more than a fearful refusal to engage them in combat?

Boycotts suggest we know we will lose the battle.

Please understand me well. I don’t make a case for going to see The Golden Compass. I saw the movie in order to address these issues for the article, and frankly I think I could have spent my time far more productively. What I do feel very strongly is that we need to be much more sparing of decreeing unpleasant views off limits. We could accomplish a lot more if we took the time to explain why our faith is so far superior.

About the Author

Rabbi Benjamin Blech, a frequent contributor to Aish, is a Professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University and an internationally recognized educator, religious leader, and lecturer. He is the author of 19 highly acclaimed books with combined sales of over a half million copies, A much sought after speaker, he is available as scholar in residence in your community. See his website at rabbibenjaminblech.com.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 35

(35)
Sarah,
August 30, 2009 1:02 AM

What a very well thought out artical

I read your artical. I thought that it was very reasonable and well thought out. I am by nature a secular person. I believe, however, that a person should have the freedom of their faith and religion, or the absence of it. I feel that even if a person is of a strong faith based background, there is no reason they can not still enjoy these books and even movies as purely a work of fiction. Unfortunately, I have found that in any religion and even in the absense of religion, many people are very quick to make assumptions and take a biased approach. I feel that they miss out on seeing the world from different perspectives. I feel that rather than judge each other on their differences, we can learn from them, therefore becoming empathetic and fair. Having the ability to understand where another person is coming from is important if we all want to get along in this world, which is now becoming smaller and smaller.

(34)
Brittany,
December 31, 2008 12:11 AM

Pathetic

I think it's incredible that people are willing to not teach their children to be free thinkers.
Instead of looking at this as a religious issue, why didn't people look at the magesterium as political power such as in Harry Potter... Oh wait people also considered that demonic or against Christianity.
I also think it's audacious for Christians to feel threatened about being told what to believe in.
Religion has had such a powerful impact that it has had the ability to govern and judge an entire country not to mention a large population of the world.
Really what this entire controversy should say is:
"Don't let your children think, harbor fear into them, make them believe they can't think for themselves, and maybe they'll never think outside the box."
Awesome!

(33)
Taylor,
August 6, 2008 11:54 AM

Just Let It Happen

I think that the author has done no wrong, neither has the Catholic Church who so strongly disapproved of the movie, books etc... We live in an age where it is nearly impossible to not offend someone, so my advice don't care that someone looks downly upon your religion, lifestyle etc... because no doubt you have done it before.

(32)
Cheryl,
January 23, 2008 10:18 AM

Right On

Why put into your mind this type of garbage when there is so much evil going on into day's world. We should spend our time putting good things into our minds, and as parents and grandparents protect our children against this anti-G-d propaganda. It is okay to stand against what G-d hates, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Thank you for the opportunity to express my view. Stand firm Israel, we are praying for you here in America. We love you and support you always. My motto is Wherever I stand, I stand with Israel.

(31)
POSSHIE,
January 7, 2008 9:46 PM

Oh Please

It's just a piece of art. It's just way you see it, whether it is harmful or merely playful. You don't have to be bother to boycott nor to be afraid of what your children will be in the future. You have something more important, right?

(30)
Kate,
January 6, 2008 10:06 AM

Correction (this is all spoiler, sorry)

I want to make a correction to what Renee said. In the third book, the girl doesn't kill "G-d." I don't know if this will help or hinder your argument but it is first established that the entity who had been worshiped as G-d was only the first angel to independently come into creation. This is why he is shown as decrepit and evil... he's a fake. He lies to all the beings that come into creation afterward and says he created them. And part of the story is that he is found out because he starts making mistakes and acting like a tyrant. I can't imagine a Jewish child is going to associate an evil old angel flying around in an armored cloud to the G-d of Judaism and to say so doesn't give your children much credit. Judaism has a beautiful history of questioning and finding proof after proof to uphold belief in the divine. This book answers the question, what if the questioning had revealed a different answer? What if there wasn't a G-d? And the response is that the world is a scary and dangerous place. It's an amazing book and one that you can put down with a sigh of relief and even more appreciation for our loving G-d.

(29)
Anonymous,
December 27, 2007 11:59 AM

Missing the Point

You're all thinking as single adults, and not as parents. This book, and its associated trilogy, are designed, not as a message, but as an indoctrination of children into atheism. The boycott is not to harm the author, but to protect the children.

It makes me sad to see Christians (Catholics in particular) attacked so much here. All the true Christians I know love the people Israel, support them, and have sympathy for their plight.

(28)
Anonymous,
December 27, 2007 5:08 AM

How big a bestseller

I can assure you the Pullman books are NOT more popular in the UK than JK Rowling's Harry Potter books.

(27)
Renee,
December 21, 2007 5:58 PM

Jews should not see this film

I am stunned that anyone claiming to have read the entire series (and claiming to be an orthodox Jew) does not feel that there is anything wrong with them. I read the first book and absolutely loved it. I read the third book and wished I hadn't. The writing was superb (after reading the first I told everyone I knew that I had discovered the greatest fantasy writer of our time--perhaps of all time). That was before the story had revealed what the book was really about.

SPOILER ALERT!!

The hard facts are that when you get t the end of the series you realize that this book is not a critique of the church--it is an all out attack on the G-d of Judaism! Pullman's writings make it clear the the biggest crime of the Catholic Church is that they promote the worship of the G-d of the Torah. The third book comes to a climax when the child, who represents second coming of Eve, kills G-d (with a subtle knife, hence the title). There is not even an all out battle to kill G-d--in Pullman's universe, the G-d who created the garden of Eden and put people in it is weak and withered and probably better off dead, anyway.

The series is disgusting. I wish I had never purchased the books. Please, don't repeat my mistake. Don't give this man a dime.

(26)
Bernard Sarachek,
December 19, 2007 8:53 PM

There is a fundamental difference between a sado-machochistic movie like Gibson's PASSION which ultimately shows the Hebrew religion in what only can be considered as total condemnation, and a movie that encourages people to think in the broadest ways about the good and bad, the morally right and wrong of all religion.If the Catholic church had wished to present Jesus as more than a masochist, and if that church had been willing to respect other religions, PASSION would have been the movie boycotted, not the GOLDEN COMPASS

(25)
Anonymous,
December 19, 2007 2:26 PM

Such nastiness is unbecoming

If all you hold is hate for the descendants of your one-time persecutors, then they will be your enemies, and their descendants, and so on. As you are not responsible for the misdeeds of your fore bearers neither are they and one should not seek to foment hate and anger first.

Now then, that aside, the Catholics have every right to be ticked. If a former Jew who walked off to atheism decided to write a big popular fiction series full of magic and idolatry, and called the enemy Sanhedrin, you'd be screaming bloody murder and rightfully so.

Instead, people are worried about how silly they look thanks to a TV company commercial rather than how the secular world harbors people angry and hateful to religion, and we miss a chance to find out what drives them, and therefore we miss a chance to take the wind out of their sails before they create divisive nonsense like The Golden Compass.

(24)
Elonna,
December 18, 2007 5:28 PM

No pity for Catholic church

I don't have an ounce of sympathy for the poor, poor Catholic Church or any other xtian church whining about how unfair a movie/book portrays them. They've got enough blood on their hands from the beginning to the present. I'm sure they long for the good old days, when they could just burn anyone alive at the stake. Now all they can do is whine. Poor, poor babies.

(23)
Leonard,
December 18, 2007 1:26 PM

Is the knowledge of evil, good?

Are we to say that whatever the Catholic's reject, we except? Is that really our knee-jerk stance? While I certainly disagree with the Catholic dogma, and all of the harm it has endorsed or allowed throughout history. Surely you don't endorse the book/film simply because it seems to attack the Catholic faith more then any other faith?

The author, book, and film are about rejecting G-d. Are you saying that is ok, so long as the focus is the Catholic faith? Is it ok to reject G-d so long as it harms the Christians more then it harms us? Should I tell my daughter that it is good for her to have knowledge of evil? I might as well tell her the world is going to hell, so let's join in. You paraphrase Maimonides to make his words imply that we should question all authority; as if truth were some sort of Greek philosophical conclusion. G-d's truth is truth regardless of your "questioning or doubt." If I were to follow your suggestions I would tell my daughter to experience sin so that she might understand "true faith." When did we become so hateful of the Catholic's (or Christian's) that we would endorse rejection of G-d?

The Golden Compass is about rejecting G-d pure and simple! I will not allow you, or anyone else to make that seem ok to my family. "Or, if you are loath to serve the L-rd, choose this day which ones you are going to serve -- the gods that your forefathers served beyond the Euphrates, or those of the Amorites in whose land you are settled; but I and my household will serve the L-rd."

(22)
Marc Milton-Talbot,
December 18, 2007 2:49 AM

They're still at it!

There goes the Roman Catholic church again:trying to control how people think.Thank goodness these former mass persecutors of free thought can't get away with murdering their critics [Jews included,remember]anymore like in olden times.I haven't seen the movie yet,but I won't be told what movies I should see or not see by them or anyone else.They should clean up their own act[paedophile priests etc]before they start pontificating on other issues.

(21)
Anonymous,
December 18, 2007 1:32 AM

WHAT ABOUT THE 'COMEDY', juno??

WHAT ABOUT THE 'COMEDY', juno??

(20)
Peter Wolf,
December 17, 2007 6:01 PM

Talk straight, and keep your side of the street clean

I have a psychology background. I am going to speak a generality, and there are always exceptions to everything. That said, one of the things we know about the subconscious is that - whether positive or negative - the subconscious of modern western human beings will focus directly on the center of the target; in other words, it is very simply literal.

It is why repetitive advertising, political spin and repetitive news messages, and even effects like what we got with nazi propaganda campaigns can have such profound effect on a population.

It is also why making a change in, say, diet or exercise, works eventually if you stay on it as a mission for about a month before it gets going on it's own steam as a new habit. Back to the subconscious: In hypnosis, for example, you'd never tell a client to "kill the light when you leave please", because he our she might literally do that upon leaving the room without any censorship or second thought. The subconscious does not make distinctions. It is, shall I say, very simple and immediate.

So what's the point? The point is that, to boycott, unless it is only the beginning of a VERY big and continued endeavor that will have to be a group's real mission to stay on it for something big enough to drop out some of daily life and persue it...For this, even bad press is good press'. It serves to turn up the volume specifically on the focus of the target item itself; in this case, the movie.

Here's an example of how the subconscious focus works. I'm 51. I've been scuba diving since I was 15, and I still remember this, because of the seeming power it had over me. One morning, I was going to go diving with a buddy, down on a nearby reef, about 50 foot depth, and a familiar place to us. My mom awoke when I went to say goodbye, and said she'd had a premonition, and would I please not go. Well, I went, because my folks didn't like me diving. It was more strongly communicated, but also kind of crying wolf (Sometimes at dinner, my dad would name a big number and offer to buy my gear from me). But they were understanding that I was a young buck with a passion for which I thank them.

But in that day, especially intending to stay safe, even as I said to myself, "ok, pay attention, be safe, etc., - remaining safe, as my *conscious* mind and surroundings seemed to be cooperating about -was not what really held the focus. Some part of me, beneath my conscious navigation, air and situation checks, was so absolutely clear that I was going to die before that dive was over, that I nearly got myself knocked out on the underside of a familiar 45 foot rock face overhang that I had been been by numerous times before. There was some kind of distraction in my attention that 'took me from behind'. Although I wanted to enact a positive action, the subconscious negative message held enough power to undermine my operational awareness - and actually split my focus enough to make it dangerous. Now, whose mom wouldn't worry about her son. I love and respect her and this is not to trash her. It's just an example of how a communication that can (through such an open channel as a mom's care for the survival of her son) in that particular context, be one of those subconscious messages that can come true if you don't *really* work hard to keep it in check. The subconscious isn't rational, and you cannot talk rationally to it. Well, you can, but it does not process that way. It deals in emotions and symbols. So put "I'm afraid you might die" in there, and the image is "dead diver". Talk all you want.

So back to the boycott thing. I know an old monk, who once said to me, "no matter what others do, always sweep your side of the street clean". That does not mean keep you mouth shut and be complacent, or not be a healthy warrior if necessary. To me it means be as impeccable as possible, and directly address the issue both rationally and emotionally, with full being, to help others be aware of the reality of things.

To just boycott, or boycott at all, will just empower it further - subconsciously for others - by creating an additional story on CNN about how "hey look, this movie must really have *something*, because everyone's all abuzz...even this bunch of Jews. Subconsciously, it only makes it stronger. Hey, those who are going, are going to go anyway. Let's handle it more intelligently with any individuals we might meet who might be interested in it, where we actually can have an effect, which might be more positive. And for me? Before I do, what do I know about the history, or about organizations to which individuals submit or go along? I need to be clear myself before convincing someone else. Or am I talking from a knee jerk reactive place that isn't well grounded in history and fact?

(19)
Michael Oberndorf,
December 17, 2007 10:15 AM

Boycotts work

I don't need a formal boycott to avoid giving my money to people whose ideas are offensive to me. I have no intention of putting money in the already over-stuffed bank accounts of leftwing, antireligious "artists." I do not advocate denying them their right to say whatever obnoxious or idiotic thngs they want, but I sure don't have go read, view, or listen to the garbage they spew. And if their "work" does not make money, it is less likely that they will be able to find venues for more of it.

(18)
Athena,
December 16, 2007 7:01 PM

read the book haven't seen the movie

As a Christian who very much values this Aish site, I appreciated Rabbi Blech's comments on the movie. I will probably rent it on Netflix when it becomes available. I thought he had excellent points. I don't think boycotting works, though I did refuse to attend "The Passion," primarily for the violence, which I did not want indelibly placed in my mind's eye. I can still, many years later, visualize scenes from "The Winds of War," which, though excellent, was deeply upsetting.

I think I am troubled that many people aren't willing to let fiction and fantasy be simply that: fiction and fantasy. Certainly these can echo truth yet they are only one person's opinions. If they lead to discussion, that can be useful. I found myself amazed at how many people vilified "DaVinci Code," for example, and how many books it has spawned. To me it was and remains a lively interesting read. Yes, it has posed questions but has not shaken my own faith.

As a sci fi/fantasy fan since childhood I enjoy such books and movies for their entertainment and sometimes educational value, and, yes, spiritual, on many occasions. Yet I know that G-d is so much bigger and more incomprehensible than anyone can possibly imagine, that there is no real danger, unless people want to make them dangerous, in these books and movies, to proving religion or G-d false or limited or whatever else. The responsibility lies with the reader and the viewer, in my opinion.

I also agree that such movies and books can provide an opportunity to be clear about one's own faith with others, should the opportunity arise.

(17)
Anonymous,
December 16, 2007 6:36 PM

Nice to see a Rabbi who thinks questions are good

I have been very disillusioned by Orthodox educational institutions in my city, which tend to discourage questioning. I am aware of "black hat" institutions that do not admit chilren from homes with internet access! So it is refreshing to see that R. Blech believes we should question; indeed, it's what's drawn me to an observant Jewish life. Unfortunately, my adolescent children are getting the opposite message from our educational institutions.

(16)
Manasseh,
December 16, 2007 4:11 PM

Does a little poison hurt?

How about a little malice to day on my neighbor, it is just a harmless little malice directed at their children!All I can say is today is my neighbor but who is next?

(15)
Janice Zuliani,
December 16, 2007 1:57 PM

Questioning is good.

I grew up Catholic but began to read my Bible. It is because I began to question what I was taught that I left and now follow TORAH. Will I see this movie, I am not sure, but I do thing that there are very many people who SHOULD question why they believe what they do especially those who do violence. JZ

(14)
Ari Yosef,
December 16, 2007 12:15 PM

Control, Repression vs Freedom?

From all the reviews and comments, it appears a "must see" movie, both for action and political / spiritual impact.

One issue comes clear from the commentaries. That's the idea of freedom and opposition to "control" oft times found in "religion" but most especially in "Organized" religion. Suddenly upon writing that, it reminds of the phrase "organized crime" and causes questions, is "random freedom" less offensive than "Organized control?"

Anarchy and rebellion as an extreme worst case pure spiritual essence these concepts equal narcissism. But not all rebellion is rooted in selfishness.

Some is righteous indignation. As we look at the causes of poverty, and despair for the reasons for social aggression and violence... So also might we consider Philip Pullman's avowed motivation.

He expresses a frustration that is rather"Jewish" in our historical context. Though they don't seem to understand, he even sides with the Christian Messiah who challenged secular or political priorities of the priesthood in his day. 40 years after, the Creator Himself destroyed the temple for Torah unfaithfulness. Perhaps today the "secular" view of protesting "organized religion" is itself poetic and worthy of many questions.

Even the Christian "Savior" exemplified and taught "freedom" and was found "rebellious." Funny how much more the "Christan" faiths now seem to have reversed his ideas in favor of "control" in the name of a man made "spiritual authority." This is true not only of Catholicism but also Protestant, Mormons and Charismatic. How little difference is the Judeo-Christian spectrum, except the degree of violence. In some respects, only that separates us from what we decry in Islam, Hindus, and Buddhists who (out of fear) resort to violent repression of dissent.

Fear of error it must be, for what else could motivate such violence than the specter of one's "religious" "Life Lie" to be challenged.

Though less violent, at this moment in history, do Christians and Jews also need the heaven sent mirror of such "anti â€“ religious' writing, to cause us to sincerely ask questions and examine our own selves, just as critically as we do others less civilized who may only be more spiritually zealous?

If our own views or behavior stifle freedom and truth from free flow of ideas, how much less understanding shall be those who may understand even less of their own spiritual basis (or lack thereof)?

This especially concerns me in Eretz Y'srael, where secular oppression reigns. Minority views of the truly spiritually observant often find less freedom, than in much of the West. In The Land, the most zealous and reverent of G-d seem to be deemed so far less than politically correct. There the bravest of pioneers, who settle and tame the wilderness, are considered, expendable to the cause of "political correctness."

Ari Yosef

(13)
Frances,
December 16, 2007 12:02 PM

It is a movie

My faith is very strong and important to me.I have not yet seen the movie but I am positive that it cannot change my beliefs. The special-effects are supposed to be great and for this reason I would like to see the movie. I can understand parents being concerned about their children seeing this film and their should be dialog at home about religion but people should be free to see the film.

(12)
Anonymous,
December 16, 2007 10:46 AM

religion is actually quite minor throughout the book

After watching this film and hearing the religious controversy, I was curious to read the book(s). Having finished the first volume, I believe that this is not a religious book or necessarily about religion at all. In the book, "bad" individuals include a college master (not part of the church), who tries to poison someone, and a lord (not working with the magisterium) who murders a child in order to achieve an objective. In the film, it seems that there is an oversimplification to focus wrongdoing on religion, when in the book it is individuals who committ wrongdoing. I'd suggest that making religion the issue might get the movie attention, but that doesn't appear to have been an intent of the author. And yes, I consider myself a religious Jew.

(11)
raye,
December 16, 2007 10:15 AM

I agree with Belle

I read the book and don't know what the whole brouhaha is about. I hope the movie doesn't disappoint when I get around to seeing it. In fact, I read the trilogy twice, once in the States and I bought the set here to read. I'm tempted to reveal the "punch line" in the third book. Finally, as an Orthodox Jew, I found nothing offensive about this wellwritten series.

(10)
Anonymous,
December 16, 2007 10:06 AM

Catholics Object to the Truth

In my opinion the Catholic League is objecting to this largely because it contains truth within fiction. Not the atheistic truth but the fact remains that the Church still does have a Magisterium. If I am not mistaken this was once the organization that tortured and killed Jews and Muslims in the Inquisition.

But I imagine most small children will simply watch it as an adventure movie and nothing more. I watched The Wizard of Oz every year of my childhood and didn't grow up to become a witch or wizard. Well, maybe a "witch" on some days :)

(9)
Rosemarie,
December 16, 2007 10:01 AM

So right

It is always good to "know thine enemy.RP

(8)
RBLevin,
December 16, 2007 9:55 AM

Clearly anti-Catholic

I'm Jewish. My family is Jewish. My wife is Jewish. My kids are Jewish. I was minimally aware of the film's controversy when we took our 3 kids to see it (after they were intrigued by trailers weeks before).

I feel the film is blatantly anti-Catholic. The metaphors couldn't be more obvious. If New Line scrubbed the anti-Vatican references before release, I can only imagine how bigoted the earlier cuts must have been.

As a Jew, as a person who has personally experienced anti-Semitism, as one who has fought and will always fight intolerance, and as a parent who teaches his children to respect other faiths and cultures, I was troubled by the film's underlying messages -- in the same way I was troubled by the messages woven into Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ.

This film is more than a child's fantasy/adventure. It's a propaganda vehicle for anti-Catholic views, and an insidious one at that (insidious because it targets children). If the call to boycott did nothing more than raise awareness of the film's agenda, then it was worthwhile, and certainly not an admission of failure. It's a p.r. tactic, and one that clearly worked.

For what it's worth, I thought the film was poorly written and acted. The characters had no depth, and the abrupt ending was an obvious setup for a sequel â€“ one which my family will not be seeing.

(7)
Maurice Roumani,
December 16, 2007 9:54 AM

Fully concur with the Rabbi

I saw the film yesterday and it was a waste of time. The effects that it created are impressive but nothing else beyond that. Agree that I could have spent my time more productively.

(6)
ruth housman,
December 16, 2007 9:29 AM

compass, encompass and compass ion

I haven't yet seen this movie or read the book but I have heard some very positive things about it and also about the controversy. I will, of course, make up my own mind. I don't like it when people try to decide for me and since for me All Is God, I then do take it, this book came out for a profound reason. Certainly there is truth in the assumptions listed above. Religions have acted in the name of truth, in the name of God, to promulgate their special version of the truth, and it is often about war and bloodshed in the process. We do know this historically and what's ongoing, even after all this history, is an abysmal record. Look at the Taliban in Afghanistan. You are right that banning books is a bad idea. We've been in that place as Jews and we know how it feels to have sacred texts hit that funeral pyre. It's wrong. Maybe we should examine some of the basic ideas for clarity, because surely within all this, there is some truth we can all point to. Now I take issue with this end statement and maybe the author did not intend this reading, but it makes "our" religion special and this is what's wrong with this article though there is much that is right and well written.

We could accomplish a lot more if we took the time to explain why our faith is so far superior.

(5)
Joey,
December 16, 2007 9:17 AM

To begin, I have neither read the book nor seen the movie (I may get around to the former, though---I'm a big fantasy fan and, strident atheism aside, I hear they are very good). My main contention with Rabbi Blech, however, is that this is a movie marketed mainly towards children, and children are not always as capable of dealing with attacks on their beliefs as adults. I can totally understand, then, why a Catholic parent trying to teach them that the Church is good would be reluctant to take them to see a movie with priests performing evil experiments on children. For one more spiritually mature, however, Rabbi Blech's point is more valid.

God bless.

(4)
Belle,
December 16, 2007 8:55 AM

liked the books, so-so on the movie

I have read a lot of Phillip Pullman's work, including "His Dark Materials" I think it is a more complex and fully realized fictional universe than Harry Potter. Pullman has a lot of good questions in his work , which is directed to an older YA audience. He also has a lot of good attibutes for his protagonists, many of these attributes are not echoed in the more popular YA books. His heroes are moral people, they defend each other, they seek the truth, they look to justice, they do not discriminate invidiously as to inborn traits. There is a "god" who is defeated in this series and an "afterlife' which is supplanted (ok - that was a spoiler) but what kind of "god" and what kind of "afterlife" . A not-too -intense reading will reveal an "Authority" and an afterlife which is more patterned after the Roman/Greco ideals than what we think about as to those issues as Jews. that is where reading these books can be so valuable for the involved parent. Why is free will so important? What about authority - can it be challenged? What is morality? This series have a number of historical and literary antecedents and those could also be explored. Plus it is a rip roaring, heart-in-the-mouth adventure. BTW, I light Shabbat candles weekly, have taught religious school, observe kashrut, and have reared my husband's and my children to do the same.

(3)
Yaakov,
December 16, 2007 8:35 AM

My view of the books

I read the books a while ago and reread them when I started being dedicated to Judaism. My opinion of them was that they spoof the catholic version of religion and the catholic church itself. The negative attitudes the author raises are entirely directed at the oppressive doctrines of the church and it's very childish view of G-d (especially that god has physical form and that god has actual, literal emotional involvement in the world). While I found it a little off-putting, the book series really didnt rub up against the Jewish view of religion or G-d.

(2)
Anonymous,
December 16, 2007 8:29 AM

The World without a Conscience

To me this movie is spectacle of the age old Chanukah story. Take away G-d, but to do this you must take away Torah. Shlomo said: There is nothing new under the sun. The Jewish people who carry the Torah throughout the years, have again and again been the venomous hatred of a world who hates conscience. If the sublimal message in this movie is to do away with G-d (G-d forbid) then this movie could be a frog in the frying pan method of indoctrinating our children into a G-d hating, Torah hating , Jew hating society...did not propaganda stir up hatred in Gemany many years ago??? and it was all accomplished by NO CONSCIENCE, which is really the point of trying to do away with G-d.

(1)
marie levy,
December 16, 2007 8:19 AM

well said..but then again...would you expect less from a "yiddishah cup"???

This year during Chanukah I will be on a wilderness survival trip, and it will be very difficult to properly celebrate the holiday. I certainty won't be able to bring along a Menorah.

So if I am going to celebrate only one day of Chanukah, which is the most significant?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

If a person can only celebrate one day of Chanukah, he should celebrate the first day.

This is similar to a case where a person is in prison, and the authorities agree to permit him to go to synagogue one day. The law is that he should go at the first opportunity, and not wait for a more important day like the High Holidays.

The reason is because one should not allow the opportunity of a mitzvah to pass. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that circumstances will later change and allow for additional observance. Therefore, we do not let the first chance pass. (Sources: Code of Jewish Law OC 90, Mishnah Berurah 28.)

As an important aside, Chanukah candles must be lit in (or at the entrance to) a home rather than out of doors. Thus, you should not light in actual "wilderness," but only after you've pitched your tent for the night.

There may be another reason why the first night is the one to focus on. Chanukah is celebrated for eight days to commemorate the one-day supply of oil that miraculously burned for eight days. But if you think about it, since there was enough oil to burn naturally for one night, nothing miraculous happened on that first night! So why shouldn't Chanukah be just seven days?!

There are many wonderful answers given to this question, highlighting the special aspect of the first day. Here are a few:

1) True, the miracle of the oil did not begin until the second day, and lasted for only seven days. But the Sages designated the first day of Chanukah in commemoration of the miraculous military victory.

2) Having returned to the Temple and found it in shambles, the Jews had no logical reason to think they would find any pure oil. The fact that the Maccabees didn't give up hope, and then actually found any pure oil at all, is in itself a miracle.

3) The Sages chose Chanukah, a festival that revolves around oil's ability to burn, as the time to teach the fundamental truth that even so-called "natural" events take place only because God wants them to.

The Talmudic Sage Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa expressed this truth in explaining a miracle that occurred in his own home. Once, his daughter realized that she had lit the Shabbos candles with vinegar instead of oil. Rabbi Chanina calmed her, saying, "Why are you concerned! The One Who commanded oil to burn, can also command vinegar to burn!" The Talmud goes on to say that those Shabbos lights burned bright for many hours (Taanit 25a).

To drive this truth home, the Sages decreed that Chanukah be observed for eight days: The last seven to commemorate the miracle of the Menorah, and the first to remind us that even the “normal” burning of oil is only in obedience to God's wish.

In closing, I'm not sure what's stopping you from celebrating more than one day? At a minimum, you can light one candle sometime during the evening, and that fulfills the mitzvah of Chanukah - no “official Menorah” necessary. With so much joy to be had, why limit yourself to one night only?!

In 165 BCE, the Maccabees defeated the Greek army and rededicated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Finding only one jar of pure oil, they lit the Menorah, which miraculously burned for eight days. Also on this day -- 1,100 years earlier -- Moses and the Jewish people completed construction of the Tabernacle, the portable sanctuary that accompanied them during 40 years of wandering in the desert. The Tabernacle was not dedicated, however, for another three months; tradition says that the day of Kislev 25 was then "compensated" centuries later -- when the miracle of Chanukah occurred and the Temple was rededicated. Today, Jews around the world light a Chanukah menorah, to commemorate the miracle of the oil, and its message that continues to illuminate our lives today.

A person who utilizes suffering to arouse himself in spiritual matters will find consolation. He will recognize that even though the suffering was difficult for him, it nevertheless helped him for eternity.

When you see yourself growing spiritually through your suffering, you will even be able to feel joy because of that suffering.

They established these eight days of Chanukah to give thanks and praise to Your great Name(Siddur).

Jewish history is replete with miracles that transcend the miracle of the Menorah. Why is the latter so prominently celebrated while the others are relegated to relative obscurity?

Perhaps the reason is that most other miracles were Divinely initiated; i.e. God intervened to suspend the laws of nature in order to save His people from calamity.

The miracle of the Menorah was something different. Having defeated the Seleucid Greek invaders, the triumphant Jews entered the Sanctuary. There they found that they could light the Menorah for only one day, due to a lack of undefiled oil. Further, they had no chance of replenishing the supply for eight days. They did light the Menorah anyway, reasoning that it was best to do what was within their ability to do and to postpone worrying about the next day until such worry was appropriate. This decision elicited a Divine response and the Menorah stayed lit for that day and for seven more.

This miracle was thus initiated by the Jews themselves, and the incident was set down as a teaching for all future generations: concentrate your efforts on what you can do, and do it! Leave the rest to God.

While even our best and most sincere efforts do not necessarily bring about miracles, the teaching is nevertheless valid. Even the likelihood of failure in the future should not discourage us from any constructive action that we can take now.

Today I shall...

focus my attention on what it is that I can do now, and do it to the best of my ability.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...